Comparing NDP and Liberal electoral reform plans
NDP proposes German-style plan, Liberals less clear
Electoral reform remains on the agenda. So do major questions about the reforms proposed by both the NDP and the Liberals. The reforms these parties have proposed appear to differ, at least to the degree that each party has fleshed out their reform pitches.
Each party’s proposed reforms leave some important questions unanswered. Some go to the heart of how decisions of major consequence for the functioning of our democracy should be made.
To get more clarity on the parties’ positions, I corresponded with Craig Scott, the NDP MP and democratic reform critic, and Robert Asselin, an adviser to Justin Trudeau.
The NDP have proposed a “mixed member proportional” system. This represents a hybrid between a system with locally elected members and a pure proportional representational system.
The functioning of the system is straightforward. Voters cast one vote for a candidate in their constituency. The candidate who gets the most votes — even if it is not a majority — is elected. They also cast a second vote indicating which party (and its list of candidates) they prefer. The results determine the overall number of seats a party is awarded. If a party is entitled to more seats than the number of local members they’ve elected, their MPs are “topped up” with candidates from the list.
There are clear benefits to this system. It retains an element of local representation while allowing for proportional outcomes. This system has worked well both in Germany and New Zealand, where it regularly returns stable coalition governments, typically dominated by a large party.
There are trade-offs involved in this system. First, what is the threshold required for parties to earn top-up seats? In Germany, a party must win 5 per cent of party votes or three seats to receive top-ups. In New Zealand, it is 5 per cent or a single seat. Thresholds matter. High thresholds keep out parties that receive hundreds of thousands of votes. Low thresholds encourage small, narrowly focused, and potentially extreme parties to organize. According to Scott, the NDP would support a similar threshold, but would apply it regionally. This would likely allow for an increased number of small parties in the House.
Second, the system divides MPs into two types — local and list. If the current total number of MPs is maintained, then the number of constituency MPs must be reduced. If not, then to achieve proportionality (often many) more MPs are required. In New Zealand, 42 per cent of seats are allotted to list MPs. In Germany, it is 53 per cent. Assume a reformed Canadian system apportioned 40 per cent of seats to the list. In a Commons of 338 members, there would be just 203 locally elected MPs. If we maintained 338 locally elected MPs, we would require a house of 564 members. More representatives are not necessarily a bad thing, but there is a clear trade-off. According to Scott, the NDP has no official position on this, though he assumes that resulting preference would be for no change in the overall number of seats. The trade-off there is for less local representation.
Third, MMP systems can be either “open list” or “closed list.” In the former, voters can indicate preferred candidates with their party vote. In the latter, they only indicate the entire party list they prefer. Open lists allow more choice for voters, while closed lists allow parties to ensure gender and ethnic balance, for example. The NDP appears to prefer an open list, though they would not require voters to specify a preferred candidate.
The NDP, while laying out the broad strokes of the system they propose, leaves some questions up for debate. There is substantially less clarity on the Liberal side.
Justin Trudeau has indicated that if elected, the Liberals will study the adoption of either a proportional system or preferential ballots. I assume that a proportional system would end up being MMP, not least because it is the reform which retains the parts of our current system — like local representation — that voters most like.
The lack of clarity on the possibility of a preferential system is more troublesome. Broadly speaking, there are two types of preferential systems. One, used in systems like the Single Transferable Vote, leads to results that are proportional between seats and votes. With that would come the other well-known consequences of PR systems — more coalition governments, more negotiation and compromise, and broader policy representation in government. Whether that bundle of goods is desirable is a question of taste, but that many voters wish for this is clear.
On the other hand, the party could adopt a system of the Alternative Vote (or a ranked ballot), as used in the Australian House. This option allows voters to indicate the full range of their preferences and demands that the candidate elected be supported by a majority of electors. But there can be and often is another candidate who is preferred by a majority to that candidate. Such a system is simple and maintains local representation, but it also leads to single-party majority governments.
Without more specifics on the Liberal plan, we cannot know if they are proposing a true move toward proportionality or towards a system that locks in single party majorities. It does not appear that these specifics are coming before the election.
What is the role of citizens in all of this? Will they have a final say, as they did in PEI, Ontario, and twice in B.C.? According to Scott, the change of our electoral system is not a constitutional change and he “firmly believe(s) there is no need for a referendum.” Asselin merely says that the Liberals have not excluded the option.
Perhaps New Democrats (and maybe Liberals) do not think citizens are up to the task of approving an electoral system. Or perhaps they suspect that as with three of the last four referendums on electoral reform, they will opt for the current system. That it is not a constitutional change is irrelevant, as such changes do not require referendums anyway.
If parties do not think that voters should decide, do they at least think that there should be an all-party consensus? According to the Liberals, “electoral reform would require broad support,” meaning at least a clear majority of members. In Scott’s view, he assumes there would be broad support among MPs who would vote for reform, though he specifies no minimum threshold.
Whatever one thinks of the merits of different electoral systems — and there is much to recommend a variety of different systems — it seems remarkable that this decision would be left to parliamentary committees and then a simple vote of the House. Think of the prolonged debate that occurred in 2014 about the Fair Elections Act. In that episode, we were told by pundits, professors, and politicians that merely changing identification requirements and the number of voting days was such a major reform that the normal procedures of passing a bill were not sufficient. Will there be a similar hue and cry when a party proposes to change the entire manner votes are cast, counted, and converted into seats and citizens, and opposition politicians have no say?
Our electoral system is fundamental to the functioning of our democracy. Those who wish to reform it should do so with a clear mandate over detailed plans and with broad public approval.
The NDP, while laying out the broad strokes of the system they propose, leaves some questions up for debate. There is substantially less clarity on the Liberal side.